Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council taking recovery action through enforcement agents for unpaid council tax. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council using enforcement agents (bailiffs) to recover unpaid council tax resulting in over £400 costs and fees. He says he informed the council of his forwarding address in 2024 and was unaware it had taken court action until 2025 when bailiffs contacted him. He says the Council could have contacted him at the correct address and avoiding him incurring the costs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council’s responses.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says the Council employed enforcement agents to recover council tax from him in 2025 even though he claims he provided it with a forwarding address in 2024. The Council says he made a payment after receiving the initial bill in 2024 but it has no records of an alternative address being provided. He did not make contact until 2025 following contact from bailiffs who used their own systems to locate him.
6. Mr X says the Council should have used the address he provided in a telephone call which would have prevented him incurring costs and fees of over £400 and it should re-imburse him for this.
7. Mr X has not provided evidence that he made an alternative address available to the Council. Councils as billing authorities are required to post remainders, summonses and court notices to the last confirmed address on their records. Mr X made a payment for the year’s tax from the address on its records and this was the one where recovery was pursued.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
9. Mr X was aware of the council tax demand for the year when he made the first payment. If he had given an alternative forwarding address he must have been aware that he had not made any monthly payments for the following period and that it was likely to result in recovery as he is a landlord of a property. It was reasonable for him to have made some enquiries in his own interests about the subsequent payments.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council taking recovery action through enforcement agents for unpaid council tax. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman